Technical FAQs: SAF Registry Interoperability Pilot

1. What technical problem is this collaboration addressing?

The collaboration addresses the risk of double issuance, meaning that the same underlying SAF emissions reduction could be registered, transferred, or retired across multiple registries without awareness, creating duplication or double counting.

The pilot tests technical mechanisms that allow registries to validate SAF attribute information across systems while preserving independence, confidentiality, and existing registry operations.

2. What data is exchanged between registries?

Only mission-relevant SAF attribute data required for validation and integrity checks is exchanged. This includes, at a high level:

• SAF attribute identifiers and metadata

• Sustainability certification references

Commercially sensitive information (such as pricing, counterparties, or contracts) is not exchanged.

3. How is interoperability implemented technically?

Interoperability is implemented through:

• Standardized data definitions and shared terminology

• Agreed data formats for SAF attribute information

• Secure, API-based interfaces that allow registries to query and validate information

• Automated validation workflows to support near-real-time checks

The pilot focuses on foundational interoperability rather than full system integration or data replication.

4. Does interoperability require a central database or hub?

No. Each registry retains its own system of record.

The pilot follows a decentralized model, where registries communicate directly with one another for validation purposes without relying on a central broker or shared database.

5. How does the pilot help prevent double issuance or double counting?

By enabling registries to:

• Check whether SAF attributes associated with a specific emissions reduction have already been issued, transferred, or retired elsewhere

• Flag potential duplication risks early in the lifecycle

• Support resolution workflows where overlaps are identified

This strengthens safeguards while allowing each registry to maintain its own issuance and retirement logic.

6. How are data security and confidentiality handled?

The pilot uses:

• Secure communication protocols

• Authentication and authorization controls

• Data minimization principles (only what is needed for validation is shared)

The collaboration does not involve sharing commercially sensitive or competitive information and operates in accordance with confidentiality, competition, and antitrust requirements.

7. Does the pilot change how existing registries operate?

No. The pilot does not replace or override existing registry rules, governance, or workflows.

Each registry:

• Retains control over issuance, transfer, and retirement decisions

• Continues to serve its existing users and markets

• Uses interoperability as an additional integrity check, not a dependency for core operations

8. Is blockchain required for interoperability?

No specific technology stack is mandated.

Each registry continues to use its own underlying architecture (including blockchain or non-blockchain systems). Interoperability focuses on data validation at the registry level, not on aligning or standardizing internal ledger technologies.

9. How are disputes or inconsistencies handled?

The collaboration framework includes governance processes, overseen by the Collaboration Committee, to:

• Review flagged duplication or inconsistency cases

• Coordinate resolution between registries

• Update technical or procedural guidance as needed

The pilot tests both technical detection and procedural response mechanisms.

10. Can additional registries join the interoperability framework?

Yes. The collaboration allows for additional registries to join through an accession process, subject to meeting defined integrity, governance, and technical requirements. We welcome other registries after concluding the pilot mid 2026.

11. How does this relate to regulatory and voluntary SAF programs?

The pilot is designed to be regime-agnostic, supporting both voluntary and regulatory SAF use cases by improving the reliability and auditability of underlying SAF attribute data.

It does not create new regulatory obligations or alter existing compliance rules.

12. What happens after the pilot concludes?

After the pilot concludes in mid-2026, the Collaboration Committee will:

• Evaluate technical performance and integrity outcomes

• Identify improvements or refinements to data definitions and interfaces

• Determine whether to expand scope, onboard additional participants, or formalize interoperability specifications

13. Where can technical stakeholders engage or provide input?

Technical engagement will be coordinated through the participating registries and the Collaboration Committee. Further details will be shared following pilot milestones and subject to governance approvals.

Click here to view this FAQ on CADO’s site.